a guy. who is well, somewhat , large in size. he most likely looks like a glazed donut because he sweats a lot and his forehead is shiny.
by manny machado lover 92;) April 24, 2017
Get the relatively big boy mug.Rel (Religious) + Nutter (Nutjob)= Rel Nutter
A person who really, really insist on his or her religion as the only way to salvation.
A person who really, really insist on his or her religion as the only way to salvation.
*Looks at the girl preaching on the bus. Gurl! Don't mind her, she is going Rel Nutter.
*The man with whom I spoke to, is a Rel Nutter.
*The man with whom I spoke to, is a Rel Nutter.
by Niro669 September 23, 2016
Get the Rel Nutter mug.Guy 1: Thought you already had a bae, what'r you doin with this thot?
Guy 2: Open Rels brah.
Guy 1: I'll be hoppin on your gf den~
Guy 2:Good luck. Open rels brah.
Guy 2: Open Rels brah.
Guy 1: I'll be hoppin on your gf den~
Guy 2:Good luck. Open rels brah.
by conanbdetective January 31, 2017
Get the open rels mug.by anonymous November 12, 2020
Get the Rel mug.by anonymous November 12, 2020
Get the Rel mug.A mooching family-member who uses reverse-nepotism (i.e., instead of Person A's extending undeserved favors to Person B just because Person B is related to him, Person B pressures Person A to excessively favor him due to family ties) in an attempt to get you to purchase non-vital items for him.
Ethan Couch's parents were way too indulgent of him financially, and so he became a totally spoiled brat who expected ALL fellow humans to cater to his wishes, whether they were his buyological relatives or not.
by QuacksO November 15, 2020
Get the buyological relative mug.Similar to Ken Wilber's "Pre/trans fallacy", which is about conflating pre-rational views with trans-rational views, the Relative/absolute fallacy is about conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective. This is the main source of confusion in the forms of spirituality that deal with the implications of non-duality (Oneness).
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
You're conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective ("The Relative/Absolute Fallacy").
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
by Carich99 December 23, 2020
Get the The Relative/absolute fallacy mug.